Page 18 - מיזוגים ורכישות - פרופ' אהוד קמר 2022
P. 18
On April 8, 1985, Mesa, the owner of approximately 13% of Unocal’s stock,
commenced a two-tier "front loaded" cash tender offer for 64 million shares, or
approximately 37%, of Unocal’s outstanding stock at a price of $54 per share. The "back-
end" was designed to eliminate the remaining publicly held shares by an exchange of
securities purportedly worth $54 per share. However, pursuant to an order entered by
the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 26, 1985,
Mesa issued a supplemental proxy statement to Unocal’s stockholders disclosing that the
securities offered in the second-step merger would be highly subordinated, and that
Unocal’s capitalization would differ significantly from its present structure. Unocal has
rather aptly termed such securities "junk bonds".
Unocal’s board consists of eight independent outside directors and six insiders. It met
on April 13, 1985, to consider the Mesa tender offer. Thirteen directors were present,
and the meeting lasted nine and one-half hours. The directors were given no agenda or
written materials prior to the session. However, detailed presentations were made by
legal counsel regarding the board’s obligations under both Delaware corporate law and
the federal securities laws. The board then received a presentation from Peter Sachs on
behalf of Goldman Sachs & Co. (Goldman Sachs) and Dillon, Read & Co. (Dillon Read)
discussing the bases for their opinions that the Mesa proposal was wholly inadequate.
Mr. Sachs opined that the minimum cash value that could be expected from a sale or
orderly liquidation for 100% of Unocal’s stock was in excess of $60 per share. In making
his presentation, Mr. Sachs showed slides outlining the valuation techniques used by the
financial advisors, and others, depicting recent business combinations in the oil and gas
industry. The Court of Chancery found that the Sachs presentation was designed to
apprise the directors of the scope of the analyses performed rather than the facts and
numbers used in reaching the conclusion that Mesa’s tender offer price was inadequate.
Mr. Sachs also presented various defensive strategies available to the board if it
concluded that Mesa’s two-step tender offer was inadequate and should be opposed.
One of the devices outlined was a self-tender by Unocal for its own stock with a
reasonable price range of $70 to $75 per share. The cost of such a proposal would cause
the company to incur $6.1 — 6.5 billion of additional debt, and a presentation was made
informing the board of Unocal’s ability to handle it. The directors were told that the
primary effect of this obligation would be to reduce exploratory drilling, but that the
company would nonetheless remain a viable entity.
14
commenced a two-tier "front loaded" cash tender offer for 64 million shares, or
approximately 37%, of Unocal’s outstanding stock at a price of $54 per share. The "back-
end" was designed to eliminate the remaining publicly held shares by an exchange of
securities purportedly worth $54 per share. However, pursuant to an order entered by
the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 26, 1985,
Mesa issued a supplemental proxy statement to Unocal’s stockholders disclosing that the
securities offered in the second-step merger would be highly subordinated, and that
Unocal’s capitalization would differ significantly from its present structure. Unocal has
rather aptly termed such securities "junk bonds".
Unocal’s board consists of eight independent outside directors and six insiders. It met
on April 13, 1985, to consider the Mesa tender offer. Thirteen directors were present,
and the meeting lasted nine and one-half hours. The directors were given no agenda or
written materials prior to the session. However, detailed presentations were made by
legal counsel regarding the board’s obligations under both Delaware corporate law and
the federal securities laws. The board then received a presentation from Peter Sachs on
behalf of Goldman Sachs & Co. (Goldman Sachs) and Dillon, Read & Co. (Dillon Read)
discussing the bases for their opinions that the Mesa proposal was wholly inadequate.
Mr. Sachs opined that the minimum cash value that could be expected from a sale or
orderly liquidation for 100% of Unocal’s stock was in excess of $60 per share. In making
his presentation, Mr. Sachs showed slides outlining the valuation techniques used by the
financial advisors, and others, depicting recent business combinations in the oil and gas
industry. The Court of Chancery found that the Sachs presentation was designed to
apprise the directors of the scope of the analyses performed rather than the facts and
numbers used in reaching the conclusion that Mesa’s tender offer price was inadequate.
Mr. Sachs also presented various defensive strategies available to the board if it
concluded that Mesa’s two-step tender offer was inadequate and should be opposed.
One of the devices outlined was a self-tender by Unocal for its own stock with a
reasonable price range of $70 to $75 per share. The cost of such a proposal would cause
the company to incur $6.1 — 6.5 billion of additional debt, and a presentation was made
informing the board of Unocal’s ability to handle it. The directors were told that the
primary effect of this obligation would be to reduce exploratory drilling, but that the
company would nonetheless remain a viable entity.
14
